The City Council of the City of Columbia,
Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, August 2, 2004,
in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll was
taken with the following results: Council Members CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON,
LOVELESS, JOHN and ASH were present. MayorHINDMAN was
absent. The City Manager, City Counselor, City Clerk and various Department
Heads were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of
July 19, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr.
Loveless and a second by Mr. John.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Hutton noted that there was a request
to table four bills, B234-04, B235-04, B236-04, and R136-04, to the September
7, 2004 meeting. He stated those would be read together (moving R136-04
from Old Business) and tabled by a motion when they were read.

Mr. Janku made the motion that public
comments precede Council and Staff comments at the end of the meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The agenda, as amended, including the
Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr.
Janku and a second by Mr. Ash.

SPECIAL ITEMS

None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B232-04Voluntary annexation of property located
south of Prathersville Road and east of State Route 763; establishing
permanent M-1 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as a one and
one-half acre tract of ground owned by the Boone County Sewer District.
The Commission and Staff recommended approval of the M-1 request.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public
hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem
Hutton closed the public hearing.

B233-04Rezoning property located on the northeast
side of U. S. Highway 63 and at the southeast terminus of Jenne Lane
from A-1 to O-P; approving the A.H.J. O-P Development Plan; approving
less stringent screening requirements.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this property as a
ten and one-half acre tract with a plan that would allow for an office
development of four single-story buildings containing 6,400 square feet
each and a two-story building containing 12,800 square feet. The request
for a variance from the screening requirements was recommended by both
Staff and the Commission.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public
hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem
Hutton closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hutton assumed the ordinance was
written to include the variance. Mr. Boeckmann replied that it was. Mr.
Hutton also assumed the area in question was where the tree line separated
the north property line. Mr. Bondra responded that he was correct. He pointed
to the area on the overhead and noted that since it was already a heavily
wooded area, there was no need for screening.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public
hearing for B234-04, B235-04, B236-04 and offered anyone that wanted to
speak regarding R136-04 to also come forward.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem
Hutton closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that all of
these bills be tabled to the September 7, 2004 meeting. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. John pointed out that the request
to table was made by the developer at the request of the neighborhood.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton noted the public
hearing would be continued to the September 7, 2004 meeting.

B237-04Calling for bids for the repair of runways
and taxiways at Columbia Regional Airport; appropriating funds.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that a consultant
worked with Staff and the FAA in preparing the bid specifications for the
damaged pavement portion and that the estimated cost of this project was
$990,000, with 95% being paid for by the FAA Improvement Program. The remainder,
$49,500, was budgeted in the CIP.

Mr. Ash asked if the secondary runway
could be used while the primary runway was shut down. Mr. Patterson responded
that they would be coordinating with the users of the airport and flight
services. He thought the taxiway and accessory work would be done this
fall, but said it might be spring before they have a window of opportunity
to get on the main runway and shut it down for 48 hours.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public
hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem
Hutton closed the public hearing.

B240-04Authorizing construction of water main serving
Stonecrest, Plat 6; providing for payment of differential costs.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that per City policy,
the City would pay for extra diameter pipe size in the interest of the
community. In this case, an 8-inch pipe would be required and the developer
would pay the equivalent of the 6-inch line. The estimated cost for the
8-inch line was $4,070.40 and would be paid with Water and Light funds.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public
hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Pro tem
Hutton closed the public hearing.

B242-04Authorizing the construction of improvements
to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial at Battle Garden; appropriating
funds, authorizing a grant agreement with the National Park Service.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Using an overhead, Mr. Hood described
the project. He explained that they had recently received notice of final
approval for a Save America's Treasures grant in the amount of $98,768
for the restoration of and improvements to the Martin Luther King, Jr.
Memorial. The scope of the grant included testing and study of the conservation
treatments necessary to restore the Memorial, actual restoration of the
Memorial, construction of an interpretive shelter, creation of some ADA
parking spaces and walkways to serve the shelter, and installation of interpretive
signs. He noted the grant was a 50/50 matching grant and added that the
matching funds would include $76,000 raised by donations to the New Century
Trust Fund, $11,768 in force account labor, and $11,000 from annual Park
Improvement funds. The total project cost was estimated at $197,536.

Mr. Beck voiced appreciation for the
private fund raising that helped make this overall project possible.

Mayor Pro tem Hutton opened the public
hearing.

Wally Pfeffer, 1405 Overhill, Chair of
the New Century Fund, offered to answer any questions. He commended City
Staff in the Volunteer Services and Cultural Affairs Offices, noting they
were invaluable in helping put together the initial fund raising effort.
He also added that the Parks and Recreation Staff was very helpful in coming
up with a priority list for them to review and make choices from in regards
to the best ways to use the funding.

On behalf of the Council and the citizens
of Columbia, Mayor Pro tem Hutton stated he truly appreciated the efforts
of the New Century Fund and other volunteers for the money that was donated.
Mr. Pfeffer pointed out that Susan Gray and Eliot Battle were Chairs of
the fund raising effort. He said they deserved a lot of praise for putting
it together. Mr. Pfeffer commented that his group was only trying to be
good stewards of the money raised.

B243-04Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code relating
to medical marijuana and paraphernalia cases in the Municipal Court.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that the City Clerk
verified the two initiative petitions pertaining to the marijuana law were
valid. Under City Charter the Council must either pass a proposed initiative
ordinance or submit the ordinance to the voters at the next available election.
Four bills were prepared for Council consideration - two would enact the
proposed ordinances and two would place the ordinances on the November
ballot.

Christy Welliver, 184 W. Green Meadows,
spoke in favor of medical marijuana. She explained that a lot of people
with MS would benefit greatly from marijuana use to deal with the pain.
She also noted that a lot of people move to Columbia from other States
where they had previously been allowed to use it. She felt it was unfortunate
that people could not use it without doing it illegally.

Dan Viets, an attorney with offices at
15 N. Tenth, commented that he has represented people in the City charged
with offenses identified under this ordinance. He called the ordinance
modest in comparison to what at least ten other States had adopted during
the past eight years. He felt this was a proposal would provide at least
a small degree of protection for people who used marijuana with a doctor's
approval. He listed harder drugs, such as cocaine, opium, etc., that doctors
were currently allowed to prescribe under Missouri law and said this ordinance
would allow those same doctors to authorize the use or possession of small
amounts of marijuana when they felt the patient suffered from a serious
medical condition such as cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS.
In regards to the question on whether the City and its voters had the authority
to mandate dismissal of charges in situations described in this ordinance,
Mr. Viets remarked that he would be surprised if a court would hold otherwise.
He explained that a Prosecuting Attorney had total discretion of whether
to prosecute in any given case and in any set of circumstances. He felt
the proposal, because initiated by the voters, would direct the Prosecuting
Attorney to exercise that discretion in a certain manner. Mr. Viets pointed
out that they had amended the proposal, from what was before the voters
last year, to include language that stated, "if it was held invalid, the
punishment would be limited to a maximum of $50."

Mr. Loveless asked if the City were to
pass this ordinance, if it would still be in conflict with State law. Mr.
Viets stated he did not think it was in conflict and noted that there were
many ordinances, currently, that covered the same topics covered by State
law, including this topic. He indicated he was aware of cities within the
State that had ordinances that covered far more serious drug offenses and
had penalties under those ordinances that were more lenient and limited
than State law. He was not aware of any challenge or any court that had
determined the City did not have the authority to punish certain offenses
as City ordinance violations. He did not think this was inconsistent or
in conflict with any State law.

Mr. Hutton asked where a person would
acquire the marijuana, if this was approved. Mr. Viets replied they would
continue to acquire it where they were acquiring it now. He noted that
there were many people forced to resort to illegal cultures, either cultivating
their own supply or purchasing it from people who sell it. He agreed it
was not a perfect solution.

Mr. Ash asked Mr. Viets if he had defended
anyone using the defense of it being used for medicinal purposes. Mr. Viets
replied he had. Mr. Ash asked if the Judge seemed lenient. Mr. Viets thought
that all Judges took that into account, but stated that they also felt
compelled to enforce the law as it was written.

Heather DeMian, 509 Clinkscales, explained
she was born with a terminal vascular illness, which has caused her to
be in chronic pain and nauseous most of her life. She explained the purpose
of her medications and pointed out that the State of Missouri under Medicaid
paid over $32,000 for seven of them. She remarked that if she were allowed
to grow enough of her own marijuana or have a friend or care giver grow
it, taxpayers would save over $30,000 per year, for one patient.

Lana Jacobs, 901 Rangeline, St. Francis
House, explained that she was Heather's mother. As a person who dealt with
drug addicts every day, she noted this issue was not about drug addiction.
She stated that she has watched her child be sick all of her life and that
she has already buried one child from this syndrome. She finds it very
painful to watch her child suffer when something so simple could help her.
She asked the Council to look at the issue and how it would affect sick
people.

If this were passed and determined to
be in conflict with State law, Mr. Ash asked what the sequence of events
would be. Mr. Boeckmann guessed it could be raised in a number of ways,
but said, he felt, if it was passed, it was unlikely it would be challenged.
He thought if the Police were to arrest someone and send them to State
Court that defendant could not raise it as a defense because it was a violation
of State law. Mr. Ash asked how likely someone would get prosecuted, if
they had a true medical reason for having the marijuana. Mr. Boeckmann
explained that both the Police and Prosecutor have discretion. He added
that when this came up last year, he asked the City Prosecutor if she recalled
ever prosecuting someone who used marijuana for medicinal purposes. She
stated she could not recall a situation and added that she would not prosecute
them, if the case were brought to her. He noted a laundry list of different
examples of people who would use it for a medical purpose. The list included
migraine headaches, arthritis, glaucoma and other things. He pointed out
that he had not asked her the question in those contexts, but in the context
of a terminally ill cancer patient. Mr. Boeckmann did not think this would
have much affect from the Prosecutor's point of view if it were passed
because he did not think many cases actually involved medical marijuana.
Mr. Ash asked Chief Boehm if he thought the Police had given more discretion
in the instance of medical marijuana use. The Chief had no statistics in
reference to the question, but noted that it was very rare for the medical
issue to come up for officers making arrests. He added that he could not
say that an officer would not make an arrest if they identified a person
having marijuana in their possession claiming that was the reason. He stated
they would probably note that in the report and leave it to the Prosecutor
to deal with. Mr. Boeckmann pointed out the possibility, if this passed,
that a number of people would say they were using it for migraines. He
thought they would require that to be verified in some fashion.

Mr. Ash remarked that he was sympathetic
in hearing about people who were suffering and in pain, but as a parent
of young children, he was also concerned about the message they would be
sending -- that Columbia was a town where smoking marijuana was okay.

Mr. Hutton asked if the ordinance was
written as a mirror image of the petition itself. Mr. Boeckmann stated
it basically was, but had some minor changes to put it in ordinance format.
Mr. Hutton thought it was vague regarding a doctor's permission because
it stated "with the recommendation of a physician." He asked if it would
be possible to change that to "with a written recommendation from a physician." Mr.
Boeckmann explained they could not change anything substantive like that.
He felt it had to be passed in the form it was presented or else placed
on the ballot. If it were to pass in this form, like any other ordinance,
he thought they could come back and make changes to it, if they felt it
would be an improvement.

Mr. Loveless did not have a problem with
it the way it was written. He stated there were all sorts of more natural
ways to address health issues than this Country used. He thought this was
one that had been long suppressed for purely political reasons.

Mr. Hutton agreed with Mr. Loveless and
said this ordinance did not bother him, especially after hearing the compelling
arguments made.

B244-04Calling a special election to be held on
November 2, 2004 to consider an initiative ordinance to establish a
medical marijuana policy.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Janku felt part of the problem with
the other ordinance was that within the jurisdiction of the City of Columbia,
there were two other police departments that had the authority to initiate
and bring referrals for prosecution -- the Boone County Sheriff and the
University Police. He did not think the City should pass something that
would give people the sense that they would not be subject to prosecution
within the City limits. Mr. Loveless said he could agree with that argument
on the next issue they were going to consider, but not on medical marijuana.
Mr. John thought Mr. Janku's comment was that the Sheriff's Department,
the University Police, and Highway Patrol could arrest that same person
and they could be under a different set of ordinances because they would
be taken to the County Court and prosecuted under State ordinance. He said
this would only affect those arrested and prosecuted by a City employee.
Mr. Hutton thought they would still have an option, if a deal was worked
out between the Prosecutor's Office and City Police, that those issues
would still end up in Municipal Court, as opposed to Circuit Court.

B245-04Amending Chapter 16 of the City Code relating
to the prosecution of marijuana and paraphernalia cases in the Municipal
Court.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this initiative would
prohibit Police from arresting adults for the possession of less than 35
grams of marijuana. It would be prosecuted as an ordinance violation with
a maximum fine of $250. He pointed out this was the issue where it could
be worked out with the County Prosecutor as to which court the cases would
be prosecuted in. He explained prosecution, in most cases, would be deferred
by the City Prosecutor or the City Judge would suspend imposition of a
sentence.

Mr. Loveless asked about the definition
of an adult in this case. Mr. Boeckmann said it would 17 or older.

Dan Viets, an attorney with offices at
15 N. Tenth, stated the primary goal of this initiative was something not
actually worded in the ordinance. He explained that Congress passed an
amendment to the Higher Education Act which affected all federal aid to
education. If convicted of possession of even a tiny amount of marijuana
in a State or Federal Court, one would lose eligibility for any form of
federal aid to education. For most middle to low income families, that
would mean the difference between being able to finish one's education
or not. He pointed out that persons convicted in State or Federal Court
for murder and burglary were still eligible for those student loans. He
explained that last year's proposal provided for fines of up to $25 only,
which many college towns had done. Because that was a concern for many
people, this ordinance provided for fines ten times that amount. Based
on his fairly extensive experience in Municipal Court representing people
charged with this type of offense, he indicated he had not seen a fine
larger than that imposed, although they could be fined up to $1,000 and
sent to jail for up to a year. He did not think the City Prosecutor had
ever recommended anyone go to jail for any period of time, certainly not
for up to a year. He pointed out this would be putting into the ordinances
what was already the established practice. He credited Chief Boehm with
enacting a policy last year, which declared all misdemeanor possession
cases, where there was not a more serious crime involved, would be sent
to City Court.

Ms. Crayton said she would like to see
people living in public housing included, not just students, because if
someone was even suspected of marijuana use, they could be removed from
public housing. She felt housing, a place to live, was just as, if not
more important, than a college education. Mr. Viets indicated he would
be in support of that change.

Mr. Hutton understood Mr. Viets to say
the student loans were based upon state or federal convictions, not municipal.
Mr. Viets replied that was correct. Mr. Hutton commented that if it stayed
in Municipal Court, as the deal was now, with or without this ordinance,
this would not make them ineligible for those loans. Mr. Viets replied
that was correct, as long as that was done, but he pointed out that no
one would stay in office forever and he feared that a future Chief might
have a different policy. Going back to Mr. Janku's earlier point, if it
was the Highway Patrol, Sheriff's Department or University Police that
arrested a person within the limits of the City of Columbia, they could
still be referred to State Court as opposed to Municipal Court. Mr. Viets
disagreed. He said he hoped it would be construed otherwise and that the
University Police and the Sheriff's Department would respect the wishes
of the voters and the Council. He felt the voters of the community held
that authority.

Chief Boehm pointed out that whether
the University Police Department would follow that or not would be up to
the University. However, he said, the Sheriff's Department and the Missouri
State Highway Patrol did not have any bearing in Municipal Court. He said
they did not arrest individuals for City ordinance violations and therefore
did not take any charges to City court under any circumstances. If they
were arresting someone, Mr. Hutton understood it would be a State charge.
Chief Boehm replied that he was correct. He also clarified that their policy
was that all first offense misdemeanor possession cases go Municipal Court.
This policy was a little different from the proposal, as he understood
it, in that second, third, and additional offenses could be taken to State
Court.

Sterling Neeb, 1402 Court, CAPE (Columbia
Alliance for Patients and Education), spoke in support of Mr. Viets comments.
He noted that education and housing were both very important things and
he was concerned about how they were dealt with. By denying anybody the
ability to go to school and better themselves, he noted, was doing nothing,
but condemning them to the life they were living at that moment. Most likely,
he felt they would continue along that same path. To be denied an education
and condemned to working at minimum wage, he said, would probably not stop
anyone's marijuana use.

Mr. Ash understood the point that it
seemed a shame for a kid to not get an education for smoking marijuana,
but argued that perhaps the kid should learn to be responsible in knowing
that since the money came with strings attached, he had better honor them.
He understood the current policy gave them a second chance and did not
feel they needed a third or fourth.

Mr. Loveless agreed with Mr. Ash and
said if a student accepted funding from some agency, he should also accept
that agency's rules. If one decided to violate those rules and then got
caught, he stated, no one had denied them an opportunity to further their
education, but rather they forfeited it themselves by their own choice.

Ms. Crayton noted that if put on the
ballot the citizens could make the decision one way or the other. She hoped
those in favor of it would also work on the zero tolerance issue for those
living in public housing.

The following bills were given second
reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.

B238-04Appropriating and transferring funds for
the purchase of a yard waste grinder for the Solid Waste Division.

B239-04Authorizing a utility easement agreement
with the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission to allow for
the construction of a water main serving Timber Creek Subdivision.

B241-04Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

R137-04Setting a public hearing: setting property
tax rates for 2004.

R138-04Setting a public hearing: setting tax rate
for all taxable property in the Special Business District of the City
of Columbia for the year 2004.

R139-04Setting a public hearing: FY 2005 Budget.

R140-04Authorizing an amendment to the agreement
with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the
Missouri Community-Based Home Visiting Program.

R141-04Authorizing an agreement with the Department
of Health and Human Services to extend grant support for minority health
services.

R142-04Authorizing an agreement with the Family
Health Center and El Centro Latino relating to minority health services.

R143-04Authorizing amendments to agreements with
various home health care agencies.

The bills were given third reading and
the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:
CRAYTON, JANKU, HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT:
HINDMAN. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading
as follows:

NEW BUSINESS

R144-04Authorizing various Adopt A Spot agreements.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that he continued to hear
more and more comments about the areas that had been beautified within
the City, particularly some of the islands. He said the program was very
positive and that there was a plan in place to encourage anyone to participate.
He thanked the volunteers.

Mr. Hutton voiced appreciation for the
willingness of volunteers to take on these projects. He felt it did beautify
the City and was a good process. He pointed out it also saved the City
money because if volunteers were not taking care of them, the tax payers
would be paying to have it done.

Mr. Beck described this as a 53 acre
tract of ground located on the western terminus of Smiley Lane. It would
create 123 R-1, single family lots. Approval was recommended by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.

Tom Bass, 909 Westover, pointed out a
blank in the center of the plat. He explained that would be a PUD. He passed
around a diagram of what he would be doing and noted it would be a two
acre town square surrounded by townhouses that would then transition into
a traditional neighborhood.

Mr. Hutton asked if the 800 foot street
included going through the PUD section. Mr. Bass replied it would go through
the town square where there would be a stop sign. Mr. Hutton assumed they
could approve this because the other part of the 800 feet was not on this
plat. Mr. Bondra explained that the regulations stated "straight streets
in excess of 800 feet shall be discouraged," but did not say they could
not be allowed.

Mr. Bass pointed out that he did not
have to put in a town square. He was only doing it because there had been
a cry for some innovative development. When the PUD came through, they
would get into more detail. He thought it would be something unique to
Columbia and something that would add a lot of character to north Columbia.

Mr. Ash asked about the 100 year floodplain
shown on the drawing. Mr. Bass explained the buildings would not be in
the floodplain, but the way the tract split came about, the lots tail off
into the100 year floodplain. He said they envisioned that area being green
space and, possibly, a trail easement. Mr. Bass commented that they had
walked the area with Steve Saitta and that the Parks Department was interested
in developing some trails.

Mr. Janku thanked Mr. Bass for working
with Parks and Recreation in terms of finding a park location and added
the trail easement would be a great amenity for this development.

Mr. Beck explained this resolution would
authorize him to execute a contract of about $80,000 with the consultant
in providing assistance in developing a policy framework and a financial
plan for the funding of Columbia transportation infrastructure. They were
proposing to pay for this out of the CIP contingency account wherein funds
were appropriated, but not designated. Earlier the Council directed Staff
to solicit proposals from firms. Four firms were interviewed by telephone
and two in person. Mayor Hindman and Presiding Commissioner Schnarre sat
in on the interviews with Staff and it was the unanimous feeling that this
firm be hired. Mr. Beck noted that, at work sessions, the Council discussed
having a citizens committee work with the consultant and City Staff. He
commented that he would like to see the Council adopt a motion authorizing
the Mayor to appoint a citizens committee to formalize the process talked
about informally at the public work sessions. It was anticipated that it
would take about four months to complete the review and, earlier tonight,
at the pre-Council session, he outlined how this might fit together, if
they started to work immediately and got a report back to the City by December
1. That would give the Council some opportunity, if looking at an April
election, to have public hearings and review what was brought in by the
citizens committee. In order to have something on the April ballot, an
ordinance would have to be introduced at the first meeting in January.

Mr. Ash understood they wanted to limit
the stakeholder committee to a small, workable sized group, but was hopeful
there would be public hearings and other things so that all of the people
that want to get involved would have the opportunity to participate. Mr.
Beck replied that the consultant wanted to have public input and that had
been built into the process.

Mr. Hutton asked if there would be public
input at a public meeting with the task force and the consultant. Mr. Janku
noted that they should not wait until they got the report. He felt the
report should reflect the public comments. The advantage to having a consultant
was that they had worked in other communities and would know how to get
that done and assimilate the information quickly. Mr. Beck noted that the
recommended firm had worked with a number of communities successfully in
bringing in public input. When there was an election, the people were very
well education on the issues because they helped develop the plan. If they
were not going to look at what other communities had done, Mr. Ash stated
he would like to see the public come in and share their ideas for consideration.
He wanted them to have their input early enough in the process, so their
input could be considered.

Mr. John felt the time frame had gotten
very tight. Although he wanted to see it done as quickly and efficiently
as possible, he also wanted to ensure there was enough time to get the
right ordinance written, to have a good effort to explain it, and to get
it on the ballot and voted on properly. Mr. Beck noted that the time frame
he mentioned was the earliest an election could be held on it.

Don Stamper, 1304 Sedona Villas Drive,
spoke on behalf of the Central Missouri Development Council. He said the
Council appreciated the opportunity to meet with Staff to discuss the issues
before the community. They believed solutions in the future would be based
upon creative financing mechanisms, not just sales tax. He commented that
they believed the challenges to be significant as a community and that
it would take everyone to get it done. They understood the responsibility
they had to continue to help grow great communities and they looked forward
to any opportunity to work with the City Administration and Council as
they went about this task, as long as there was equity and fairness. Mr.
Stamper said his Council felt the City was headed in the right direction
in this venture.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, commented that
he was generally supportive of this effort. He stated he would have preferred
the wording not be about funding of Columbia's transportation infrastructure,
but funding of Columbia's infrastructure. He was pleased to see there would
be a tax based task force and was hopeful the citizens group and the Council
would come to the conclusion that we needed to think about the whole tax
base and a number of the components of the infrastructure together, as
opposed to just creating pockets of strategies for individual projects.

Mr. Beck pointed out that several years
ago he submitted to the Council a financing plan that dealt with all areas.
He said they would not just be looking at transportation, and the reason
they were calling it transportation was because it did not only deal with
streets, but with sidewalks, pedways and everything else except buses.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the Mayor
be authorized to appoint the task force referenced in the agreement just
voted on and that Staff be authorized to give any assistance necessary
to begin the process in an expeditious manner. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The following bills were introduced by
the Mayor Pro tem unless otherwise indicated, and all were given first
reading:

B247-04Approving the Final Plat of Sunrise Valley;
granting a variance relating to street right-of-way width.

B248-04Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction
with the proposed Final Plat of Eastport Gardens Plat 1-A.

B250-04Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction
with the proposed Final Plat of Vintage Falls Plat 1.

B251-04Approving the Final Plat of Vintage Falls
Plat 1; authorizing a development agreement and a performance contract.

B252-04Approving the Final Plat of Vandiver Business
Park Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

B253-04Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B254-04Amending Chapter 27 of the City Code to
enact a renewable energy standard.

B255-04Calling a special election to be held on
November 2, 2004 to consider an initiative ordinance to enact a renewable
energy standard.

B256-04Amending Chapter 17 of the City Code as
it pertains to hunting in city parks; establishing an archery deer
hunting program.

B257-04Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code relating
to conflicts of interest and financial disclosure procedures.

B258-04Accepting and appropriating donated funds
for the purchase of fire prevention education equipment.

B259-04Accepting and appropriating donated funds
for the purchase of uniforms to the Special Olympics program.

B260-04Appropriating funds donated by the Columbia
Cosmopolitan Luncheon Club to the youth scholarship program.

B261-04Accepting and appropriating donated funds
to the WIC program.

B262-04Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri
Department of Health and Senior Services for the purchase of influenza
vaccines; appropriating funds.

B263-04Establishing a moratorium on the demolition
and removal of buildings in the Columbia Special Business District.

B264-04Setting property tax rates for 2004.

B265-04Setting tax rate for all taxable property
in the Special Business District of the City of Columbia for the year
2004.

B266-04Adopting the FY 2005 Budget.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS

(A) Intra-Departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B)Street Closure Request.

Mr. Beck explained the request from the
Old Wheels Car Club as being the closing of Broadway from Seventh to Tenth
Streets, and Ninth Street from the alley north of Broadway to the alley
south of Broadway on Sunday, October 3, 2004.

Mr. Hutton noted the Central Columbia
Association, after reviewing the request, suggested approval, but changed
the location. Their recommendation was to close Broadway from Fifth to
Eighth Street and closing Seventh and Eighth from alley to alley. Mr. Janku
pointed out that Ninth and Tenth Streets impacted some of the Churches.
Mr. Hutton asked if anyone had talked to the Car Club about the recommendation.
Mr. Beck replied he would have to check into that.

Mr. Hutton made the motion that Staff
be directed to check into the issue with both groups and report back at
the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless.

Mr. Ash noted he was still wanting to
know from Staff what happened after approval by the Council was given as
far as the applicant was concerned and what it was they were required to
do in order to inform the public.

The motion made by Mr. Hutton, seconded
by Mr. Loveless, was approved unanimously by voice vote.

(C)Proposed Revisions to the Planned District
Zoning Districts.

Mr. Beck asked the Council if they wanted
the Commission to hold hearings at this point based on their report or
if the Council wanted to discuss it further and make comments back to them
before they had a public hearing.

Mr. Janku stated he would like to discuss
it at a work session and have a Staff Report at that time stating any departmental
concerns so those could be discussed.

Mr. Janku made the motion that a work
session be scheduled on the subject before referring it back to the Planning
and Zoning Commission for a public hearing. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Hutton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Ash agreed with Mr. Janku in that
Staff input be included when considering the revisions.

(D)Renewables Report.

Mr. Dasho explained they looked at options
where they could either bring renewable power into the City or generate
it locally. He said there was green power available, renewable energy and
wind energy, out in the market place and it was just a matter of signing
a contract for the purchase of it. He pointed out that they estimated the
cost of purchasing green power off of the wholesale marketplace to be an
additional $460,000. They also looked at the option of generating it internally
and noted that the City already did this at the Waste Treatment Plant where
they used methane gas to run a diesel generator, which provided a portion
of their electricity. Mr. Dasho explained that methane gas was being flared
off at the Landfill and that they could use that gas to run a generator
out there. It was an option they were looking at and they were working
with the Department of Public Works. If that went forward, the estimated
additional cost was about $200,000.

In regards to sewer utility, Mr. Janku
asked if there were any plans for expansion and putting it into the grid.
Mr. Patterson replied that when they looked at the Wastewater Treatment
generation capability, it was obvious to them that it would be more useful
to offset the use of electricity by the utility. He said they did not see
a growth in production there like they did at the Landfill and they did
not anticipate making it part of the grid system because a system was already
set up to utilize it at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. In addition, since
it did not provide all of the electricity at any time, there was not a
question about having a surplus of gas that was not being used.

Mr. Hutton asked about the bio-gas from
the Landfill, assuming over time it would have a potential of increasing
the volume of gas. Mr. Patterson replied that it did, and added that they
had been monitoring and measuring it ever since they started putting in
the collection system, when they went to subtitle D landfill construction.
In the last year, he noted, it had reached the point where it had an economic
feasibility of using it for industrial, setting up a system similar to
that at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, or putting it as part of the Water
and Light grid to produce electricity out in the system. Another item they
were studying was a bio-reactor cell, which would have a tremendous impact
on the amount of methane gas that would be generated at the Landfill.

Mr. Hutton understood there were other
sources for renewable energy, which had been studied, but were not economically
feasible. Mr. Dasho replied that was correct. He said there would not be
quantities to meet the two percent being asked for in the ordinance. They
were looking at sources that could provide that quantity in a short period
of time. Mr. Hutton understood that neither of the two options mentioned
provided the two percent. Mr. Dasho said that was correct, depending upon
what happened with the Landfill, where there was a potential for additional
generation. He noted a combination would work and added that they could
probably negotiate a contract to get the two percent if they wanted it
totally on wind energy.

Mr. Ash asked if they would look at other
possibilities besides the two given. Mr. Dasho replied that he expected,
by 2010, that the marketplace might change and that there might be an alternative
out there in the future. Right now, he said, these two were the most obvious
ones that could actually be dealt with.

Mr. Hutton noted a wood chip wood waste
being used elsewhere in the State and asked if that would work in our existing
coal fired boilers. Given the way our existing boilers were set up, Mr.
Dasho did not believe it would work. He pointed out, however, that they
were about to engage a consultant to take a look at the existing set up
to see what we could do and what modifications would be necessary to burn
some kind of bio-mass wood waste. Mr. Hutton saw the downside of that being
that it would not produce any more power because we would be going off
the existing boiler. It would only be a substitute, not something producing
more power.

Mr. Ash asked, if it turned out that
the best way to use some of this green power was internally, if that would
be calculated somehow in the equation to meet percentages, or if, because
it was not part of the grid, it would not be considered as us doing our
part on green power. Mr. Dasho felt the City should be credited for the
renewable resources we were using right now. Mr. Boeckmann did not know,
legally, if it would.

Ms. Crayton asked about safeguards in
peak times. Mr. Dasho explained that they looked at the peak requirements
they needed to meet, calculated those for years into the future, and added
15% of additional resources to cover the City in case of unexpected cold
weather or the loss of a resource. He also noted that they had additional
resources to where they could bring them in to meet unexpected peaks. It
was a reserve margin and was built into their calculations and contracts.

Mr. Hutton asked if the additional cost
relating to bio-gas was calculated into the rates. He thought it was an
initial cost of $1.5 million to $2 million that would have to be spent
in order to generate the electricity off of bio-gas. Mr. Dasho replied
it was and added it was for the generator itself.

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:

None.

COMMENTS OF PUBLIC, COUNCIL, AND
STAFF:

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, understood
the biggest source of savings to be conservation. He was hopeful, on the
renewable energy issue, the Council would investigate what could be done
in terms of encouraging conservation. Regarding the medical marijuana issue,
Mr. Clark asked the Council to follow up on getting discussions started
with the County, the Highway Patrol, and the University.

Linda Rootes, 811 N. Eighth Street, told
the Council she was appreciative of the North Central Neighborhood being
given the grant that initiated their planning process. Now that they had
matched it through business contributions and financial institution contributions
and had retained a very good consultant, she was hopeful the Council would
continue to support it both personally and institutionally.

Mr. Ash explained that a Southridge constituent
had contacted him regarding a problem with a truck cab being left running
to recharge the battery. The gentleman also thought it was a safety issue
because it took up a portion of the travel lane and caused people to pull
out into the street. The Police stated the truck owner was not breaking
any laws since he did not leave it there over 24 hours and since the engine
was not loud enough to violate the noise ordinance. Mr. Ash commented that
he had a similar situation in his neighborhood with a large landscaping
truck and asked if anyone had any suggestions. Mr. Loveless replied that
they had dealt with a tractor trailer on Northland and he thought they
passed an ordinance about not parking a tractor trailer on that particular
street. Mr. Ash noted that this tractor trailer tended to move around within
the neighborhood. Mr. Janku asked if he was talking about a trailer or
just a cab. Mr. Ash said he thought it was just the cab.

Mr. John noted that he had checked into
the issue and that a lot of subdivision ordinances did not allow people
to park anything over a half ton, buses, boats, etc., in their driveways.
Those people had to park them in the street. If people cannot park their
particular means of income near their house, they cannot work at their
job because of some ordinance. In the past, that was the thing the issue
got hung up on - we were affecting people's livelihoods. Mr. Ash felt the
common thread was the size of the vehicle being parked, which created a
safety concern.

Mr. Ash made the motion that Staff be
directed to report back on the current ordinance and how it addressed this
issue and that they also report back with any recommendations for consideration.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously by voice
vote.

Ms. Crayton reminded everyone about National
Night Out tomorrow, the 3rd, and was hopeful everyone would
participate in their own neighborhood.

Ms. Crayton welcomed home those in town
to participate in the Black and White Ball.

Mr. Janku noted the Council received
a request from the North Central Neighborhood Association asking for authorization
for Staff to work with them on their neighborhood planning project. He
noted in their letter that Staff had already been doing that.

Mr. Janku made the motion that Staff
be authorized to work with the North Central Neighborhood Association in
connection with their planning project. He further motioned that it be
left to the Staff to determine their level of participation. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku made the motion that proper
legislation be prepared in order for public comment to precede Council
comment on the Council agenda permanently. The motion was seconded by Mr.
John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku noted a lot of concern expressed
regarding the incorporation of smaller communities around Columbia. He
wondered if it would be appropriate for the Council to formally express
their feeling about the issue. He felt their were multiple issues besides
the impact on the City of Columbia and its ability to extend its boundaries.
He thought the recent concern was premature because the City's process
for annexation was long and very open. He felt the City could certainly
advise the County if they were getting ready to talk about it. He also
felt their thoughts as a body should be conveyed to the County. Mr. Hutton
agreed and thought it would be appropriate for the City Manager to write
a letter to the County Commission voicing the opinion of the Council.

Mr. John asked when the last voter approved
annexation had taken place. Mr. Beck thought it was probably Cedar Lake,
but said the last major expansion had been in 1969. Mr. Ash was not sure
the incorporation debate centered on voter annexation. He thought they
were reacting to voluntary annexation nearby. Mr. Hutton agreed and noted
it was not how it was happening, but the fact that it was happening. Mr.
John explained the concern was generated because Rock Bridge State Park
requested to be on the City sewer system. Looking at Rock Bridge State
Park and its potential expansion at the exact time the City was looking
at the north side of Columbia, where the County owned a bunch of land,
which basically formed a two mile blockade across the north side of town,
we realized that 10 to 20 years from now there could be a blockade formed
across the south side of town. He stated the request was for annexation
along the right-of-way, not inside the Park, so we would not have the blockade
in case people beyond the Park wanted voluntary annex some day. Mr. John
felt that discussion created the concern to the south that the City wanted
to annex them. Generally speaking, Mr. John pointed out, the City wanted
the people living in that area to have the option of annexation, if they
ever wanted to be on a sewer system. Mr. Janku commented, in the last year,
the City had some good cooperative relationships with Boone County on things
like the Fairgrounds. He was hopeful they could continue to build on that
relationship and stated that they did not need to react to this long term
thing that might happen. He saw no immediate need for Pierpont or any other
area to become incorporated. As things moved forward, he felt we could
work with the County.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the City
Manager and Mayor Pro tem be directed to communicate with the Boone County
Commission stating Council opinion regarding the unincorporated areas around
the City. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless and approved unanimously
by voice vote.